RAMESH JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was granted lease of a piece of land by the Authorised Officer under Section 3 of the Act. Section 4 -A authorises the Collector to take up such allotment in revision either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo moto, and pass such orders as he may deem fit in the matter. In the instant case the Collector has cancelled the lease on the ground that the petitioners are not landless persons and that the land in question formed part of a public land belonging to the Municipal Corporation.

(2.) UNDER Section 4 -A power is to be exercised by the Collector himself and he is supposed to examine the record in order to satisfy himself 'as to the legality & propriety of the Order passed by the Authorised Officer. Proviso to Section 4 -A further provides that no order shall be varied or reversed in the revision unless the notice is served on the party interested and the opportunity is given to. him of being heard. However, in the instant case it is seen that the Collector instead of himself holding any enquiry for hearing has deputed his Additional Collector to do the needful. I am afraid, the course adopted by the Collector, was not in accordance with law. Such a power of revision vested in an Authority cannot be delegated unless there is some specific provision to that effect. The hearing is to be done by the Authority who is to revise the order. In the instant case the Collector seems to have acted mainly on the report of the Additional Collector. The order is vitiated for improper exercise of jurisdiction.